In a case where an employee worked while driving a motor vehicle that was provided by the company for his/her work, going out of work, and going to work, and suffered from an injury such as blood cerebral injury due to a traffic accident, the case holding that the work process constitutes an occupational accident on the ground that it was under the control and management of the company

Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007) (Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the current Act)

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeon Sung-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu11091 decided September 24, 2008

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term “occupational accident” under Article 4 subparag. 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007) refers to an accident resulting from an occupational accident resulting from an employee’s performance of his/her duties or ordinary activities incidental thereto under the control and management of the employer, based on an employment contract between the employee and the employer. Generally, even if there is a close and poor relationship with the business of providing the employee’s commuting labor, as long as the method of departure and retirement and the selection of the route are reserved by the employee, the accident that occurred during his/her departure and retirement cannot be deemed an occupational accident. However, if the employee’s departure and retirement process is deemed under the control and management of the employer, such as the employee’s use of means of transportation provided otherwise, or the employer’s use of means equivalent thereto, it may also constitute an occupational accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du157525, Sept. 28, 2007).

Recognizing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff suffered from an injury to the blood cerebral brain, etc. due to a traffic accident that occurred while driving the instant vehicle owned by the non-party company and working at work on January 2, 2006, constitutes an occupational accident. In other words, the Plaintiff caused an accident while driving the instant vehicle, which was provided by the non-party company for free use for duties and outing and leaving work, which was offered by the non-party company for free use. Thus, the Plaintiff’s choice of the Plaintiff’s method of attendance and its route is reserved to the Plaintiff, even though the instant vehicle was for the business of the non-party company and the vehicle maintenance cost was borne by the non-party company, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s work process was under the control and management

However, it is difficult to accept such judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the facts and records cited by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the plaintiff entered the non-party company around December 7, 199 and worked as the manager of the non-party company at the time of the accident, and took overall charge of the business affairs of the non-party company. The non-party company provided the non-party company as the non-party company's residential area (hereinafter omitted), the plaintiff's residential area to the non-party company (hereinafter omitted). The plaintiff's residential area to the non-party company's intermediate bus is operated from the plaintiff's residential area to the non-party company to the non-party company, and the remainder is not operated by the non-party company. The non-party company was used for the non-party company's business affairs because the non-party company was not operated. The non-party company's vehicle was used for the non-party company's original business affairs. The non-party company's residential area and the non-party company's maximum residential area of the non-party company's residential area and the non-party company's main residential area.

Therefore, this case's automobile constitutes a means of transport provided by the non-party company for the plaintiff's attendance and retirement at least at the time of departure and retirement, and the plaintiff's attendance at the same time by using the motor vehicle of this case arrives at the place of business performance by preparing necessary means of movement to perform the non-party company's business. Therefore, in such a situation, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was under the control and management of the non-party company, the business owner, and the accident of this case occurred during this process

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise on the grounds stated in its reasoning that the instant accident does not constitute an occupational accident. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational accidents, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)